Dragon Age: Inquisition preview shows combat and consequences

Bioware's next fantasy epic focuses on dilemmas and weightier battles.

If there's one thing that comes through in the first public demonstration of BioWare's Dragon Age: Inquisition, it's that the company is eager to get back on track after the somewhat ill-received changes found in 2011's Dragon Age II. The new title, set for release late next year, is all about being a force for change in an expansive world that's churning around you, leaving behind a more insular focus on the internal dynamics of a few characters.

"We're trying to stay true to one of the original goals of the franchise, which is to be about a place, about a time," the creators said. "It's not about a single story, it's not about a single character."

That place and time in Inquisition are what the creators are calling a "world out of balance," where a cataclysmic event has opened giant rifts between dimensions, brought the dead back to life, and generally caused too much chaos to be just a coincidence. Both the mages and the Templars have the power to fix this problem, but they're too focused on a hopelessly deadlocked war to settle their differences and address the larger problem.

That's where the Inquisition, an ancient institution dedicated to rooting out corruption from outside of any church or established order, comes in. The new game is as much about building up this now-resurgent organization as it is about building up your characters, the creators said, gaining the trust of the people and the ability to wield more organizational power as you go.

The key to this system of influence is a series of keeps placed throughout the world, each of which lets you extend your control over the nearby area. You can capture them indirectly—say by poisoning the water supply or using signal fires to draw out the keeps' forces—or through direct attacks. Once you have control, you can tailor the keeps to a few different styles, deciding whether to focus on espionage, military strength, or commerce, for instance. You'll also be able to send out inquisition agents, who can unlock new projects and abilities in the area

A game of dilemmas

These are actually some of the less important choices that the creators are trying to make the focus of Inquisition. "What we're trying to bring back for Dragon Age: Inquisition is the concept of dilemma... when you're faced with a choice, it means you know what's going to happen, you understand the consequences, but the differences between those consequences make it hard to pick between those choices."

These kinds of choices are reserved for massive, epic-level events. You might have to decide whether to allow a king to die when his rival is offering you more power, for instance. "It's a place where people make bad decisions for good reasons. We don't have mustache-twirling villains. … while you might not agree with the reasons someone does something, you should at least understand."

It all sounds a bit more advanced than the simple paragon/renegade type of dichotomy found in most Bioware games. The familiar wheel-shaped dialogue choice system has been modified this time around, as well, to provide a direct hint as to precisely what will happen if you choose a certain response. That change makes sure that "you never pick 'To heck with you!' and end up slaughtering the guy's entire village," for instance. While this feature can be turned off, even when it's on the creators stress that the game will only warn you about your direct actions, and not their potential unforeseen consequences.

And those consequences can be dire. Not only will decisions you make in Inquisition sometimes unlock new content and quests, but choosing certain options can actually cut off certain lines of content, making them inaccessible in the future. If you choose not to defend a keep that's under attack, for instance, you may come back to it later to find the stronghold burned to the ground, along with all the content it would have contained at that point.

The ways you project this kind of influence on the world will often be less explicit than it has been in previous Dragon Age games as well, the creators say. For instance, if you come across an abandoned boat controlled by the Inquisition's enemies, you're free to set it on fire (provided you have the appropriate potion or magic spell). But the game isn't going to just pop up with a prompt suggesting that you take up some beneficial pyromancy. "The idea of pressing A to do everything is something we're trying to avoid."

Bye bye health regeneration

Any changes to the story and consequence systems seem minor compared to the alterations Bioware is making to combat in Inquisition. This time around, your characters' health will no longer recover automatically after every fight, which means you'll have to plan ahead for an entire adventure's worth of battles at a time, and make much more careful use of your limited potion space than in previous games. "Getting away [from a battle] with one guy with a sliver of health is not going to leave you in a very good place," the creators said.

Enemies in Inquisition no longer automatically level up alongside your character, either. That means if and when you come back to an earlier area, you'll find the foes there will be much easier to defeat than they were the first time through. It also means, however, that you might run in to pockets of enemies in certain spots that you are just ill-equipped to handle at that point in time, forcing you to hold off until you've improved your party a bit.

Luckily, combat doesn't start as soon as you're spotted, giving you a bit of time to prepare for fight or flight. It also gives you time to pause the action and switch into an overhead tactical view (which will now be in all versions of the game, not just the PC edition). Here you can issue orders and position your party for maximum effect, rather than relying on your real-time reflexes. It's now a bit easier to stay in this view as you issue your orders and let them play out, as well.

Of course, the creators are emphasizing the ability to play battles out in a number of ways. Depending on your party's strengths, you can go in strong with armor busting force, or play more tactically, cutting the opposing forces in half with a wall of ice, for instance. In one particularly thrilling battle demonstration, a mage froze two guards, allowing a warrior to run past them and slice away at a weak brig support, bringing down the two troublesome archers perched atop the structure.

For all the tweaks and changes to the formula shown during the demo, the overall feeling I got was of a company trying to recapture to the melding of an epic, branching story with the tight, tactical combat that made the first Dragon Age game so refreshing. Inquisition is set to hit PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 late next year.

Promoted Comments

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

178 Reader Comments

"What we're trying to bring back for Dragon Age: Inquisition is the concept of dilemma... when you're faced with a choice, it means you know what's going to happen, you understand the consequences, but the differences between those consequences make it hard to pick between those choices."

These kinds of choices are reserved for massive, epic-level events.

Sounds like what the Witcher series already does. Except the Witcher series applies that concept to all levels of decision making, from small decisions to decisions that change the overall outcome of the game.

Considering what a copypasta charlie foxtrot the second one was, I'm holding off on this until a good time after it has been released. The first chapter of DA2 was good, and the underground was good, but the idea of using one house and two caves for the entire game (was it two caves? might have been one, I try to forget) was such a horrible idea that I can think of no other reason then laziness (or REALLY bad deadlines). Could you really not design a few other houses? Was there no room left of the disc? Why was on disc content cut and made an exclusive preorder bonus and later DLC?

None of what they said actually solves much of what was wrong with DA2. The economy was completely unbalanced, you needed a bunch of gold in that game, and yet almost everything you find was only worth a few copper (10000 copper to the gold piece). The settings repeated so often it was a slap in the face. A lot of stuff looked like there was supposed to be quest hooks, but went nowhere (cut quests?).

In short, the QUALITY was what was lacking. How about the developers come out and say "Yeah, we made a lot of mistakes last time. We were rushed, we took short cuts, we delivered a product that was worth less then what we asked for it and we're sorry. To do better this time, we are..."

Mogbert is spot on, DA2 was just too much of a phoned in steaming pile of sludge to give this the benefit of the doubt. The fact that every single one of these screenshots shows the same god awful third person that DA screwed the pooch in order to embrace makes that point stand double

Branching story? BioWare? Sorry, but I played all their games until DA2/ME3 and they've never been into 'branching stories' like Fallout or TES or The Witcher or so many other games... Rather they've been pretty-much 'rail fests' with, at best, limited shuffling and some side-quests that are theoretically optional, but without them you'll be in level trouble...

Also, I'm going to wait and see if it takes more the 15-20 hours to complete they've been running Jade Empire or has yet another raft of abusive DLC or another 'in game' store like DA:O had...

I"m also tired of the 2.5 D and all the artificial movement constraints... "OH, NOES a TWIG IN THE PATH!!! We must run 100 meters in a big circle because we can't step over it." And the lousy combat and bugs.

Actually, thinking about it... Unless I get some really strong friend-sourced purchase recommendations, I have very serious doubts I'll buy it. They've burned me too many times with abusive DLC, short-games, lousy game play and bugs since JE and I don't see why I should 'trust' a Company that has been going down hill for years..

"What we're trying to bring back for Dragon Age: Inquisition is the concept of dilemma... when you're faced with a choice, it means you know what's going to happen, you understand the consequences, but the differences between those consequences make it hard to pick between those choices."

These kinds of choices are reserved for massive, epic-level events.

Sounds like what the Witcher series already does. Except the Witcher series applies that concept to all levels of decision making, from small decisions to decisions that change the overall outcome of the game.

The choices in the Witcher series seem to favor plot and moral ambiguity over characterization, when there's a role for both. In Baldur's Gate, you can choose to kill someone or not, or but you can also choose to go on a rant about how storefronts are public space. One is a dilemma, the other isn't, but the game is richer for having both.

Then again, I played DA2 first, then (tried) playing DA. The only problem I had with DA2 was that it was way too repetitive both in side missions and scenery. The story I enjoyed, and the characters, as well as the plot. Played through both times (good and ruthless).

However, when I tried to play through DA, I was constantly saying 'Why is this so boring'. Part of that is I like to do all the side quests, and it became tedious to do them. They were constantly sending me all over creation with no rhyme or reason about where they were in relation to where i had to go to complete them. And the plot seemed.. kind of clunky to say the least. I finally ended up giving up about 2/3rds of the way through (plus my life got busy, so had less time to play).

I'd kind of like something inbetween DA and DA2. Tighter plot control, side quests that mesh well with the central plot, and good character development. But, with a much more expansive world, not just a dozen areas.

Considering what a copypasta charlie foxtrot the second one was, I'm holding off on this until a good time after it has been released. The first chapter of DA2 was good, and the underground was good, but the idea of using one house and two caves for the entire game (was it two caves? might have been one, I try to forget) was such a horrible idea that I can think of no other reason then laziness (or REALLY bad deadlines). Could you really not design a few other houses? Was there no room left of the disc? Why was on disc content cut and made an exclusive preorder bonus and later DLC?

None of what they said actually solves much of what was wrong with DA2. The economy was completely unbalanced, you needed a bunch of gold in that game, and yet almost everything you find was only worth a few copper (10000 copper to the gold piece). The settings repeated so often it was a slap in the face. A lot of stuff looked like there was supposed to be quest hooks, but went nowhere (cut quests?).

In short, the QUALITY was what was lacking. How about the developers come out and say "Yeah, we made a lot of mistakes last time. We were rushed, we took short cuts, we delivered a product that was worth less then what we asked for it and we're sorry. To do better this time, we are..."

But this isn't being developed in only 6 months like the sequel... So at least there is hope THERE.

I am rather excited for a TRUE sequel to the original, which I loved, somewhat flawed as it was...

However, when I tried to play through DA, I was constantly saying 'Why is this so boring'. Part of that is I like to do all the side quests, and it became tedious to do them. They were constantly sending me all over creation with no rhyme or reason about where they were in relation to where i had to go to complete them. And the plot seemed.. kind of clunky to say the least. I finally ended up giving up about 2/3rds of the way through (plus my life got busy, so had less time to play).

Based on your description of the first game, you are confusing it with something else. Side quests hardly had you running all over the place for no reason. You almost make the game sound open world, which it was not...

You gave up probably because it was long and too many gamers now cannot stand game longer then 5 minutes, judging by your love of the abortion, I mean sequel.

Branching story? BioWare? Sorry, but I played all their games until DA2/ME3 and they've never been into 'branching stories' like Fallout or TES or The Witcher or so many other games... Rather they've been pretty-much 'rail fests' with, at best, limited shuffling and some side-quests that are theoretically optional, but without them you'll be in level trouble...

Also, I'm going to wait and see if it takes more the 15-20 hours to complete they've been running Jade Empire or has yet another raft of abusive DLC or another 'in game' store like DA:O had...

I"m also tired of the 2.5 D and all the artificial movement constraints... "OH, NOES a TWIG IN THE PATH!!! We must run 100 meters in a big circle because we can't step over it." And the lousy combat and bugs.

Actually, thinking about it... Unless I get some really strong friend-sourced purchase recommendations, I have very serious doubts I'll buy it. They've burned me too many times with abusive DLC, short-games, lousy game play and bugs since JE and I don't see why I should 'trust' a Company that has been going down hill for years..

KOTOR i felt gave you good control. felt like you could really screw with the story and make it your own adventure.

But I agree they've fallen off the original path of player empowerment and been more into player nuances.

Then again, I played DA2 first, then (tried) playing DA. The only problem I had with DA2 was that it was way too repetitive both in side missions and scenery. The story I enjoyed, and the characters, as well as the plot. Played through both times (good and ruthless).

However, when I tried to play through DA, I was constantly saying 'Why is this so boring'. Part of that is I like to do all the side quests, and it became tedious to do them. They were constantly sending me all over creation with no rhyme or reason about where they were in relation to where i had to go to complete them. And the plot seemed.. kind of clunky to say the least. I finally ended up giving up about 2/3rds of the way through (plus my life got busy, so had less time to play).

I'd kind of like something inbetween DA and DA2. Tighter plot control, side quests that mesh well with the central plot, and good character development. But, with a much more expansive world, not just a dozen areas.

I liked DA2, liked it better than 1, and agree for the most part with your thoughts. The only thing I really disliked about 2 was how much they recycled environments and sidequests. But most of the quests were short, then you did some plot stuff. The combat was overly simple, but I thought it was a bit slow and tedious in 1, and some of the quests in 1 went on waaay too long (looking at you, Deep Roads.) Liked the plot in 2 as well, and don't know why it gets so much grief just for its scope. It was well done and a refreshing change from the 'we have to save the nation/world/galaxy' thing that seemingly every other game does.

Just wanted to say something, since I think DA2 gets a bad rap and someone needs to stand up for it.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

This is a major problem Bioware has, though it's still not as atrocious as the screenshots of Ashely I saw from ME3. "Look I'm a tough female space marine... with a skin tight outfit and perfect just styled hair and look like I've just been photoshoped to hell and back after a glamor shoot." It was one of the most blatantly exploitative things, if she'd showed anymore skin she'd be straight out of a high class porno (I imagine).

That being said, the "Stand In" for the player character is actually a woman this time (I assume that she's the chick with the Eye shield that's been in all the screenshots, and is there at least partially because there's a ton of women that love Dragon Age). And she doesn't really look exploitative at all.

I've not enjoyed a Bioware game since Dragon Age Origins, and not actually bought a Bioware game since ME2 and the "You are mentally retarded so here's giant flashing signs pointing you in the only possible direction you can go" level design and the out of nowhere "WTF why is there a last boss at all, let alone one that is a giant humanoid terminator?" ending.

That being said I'll at least look at the reviews for Inquisition. Bioware has yet to say much that's truly inept yet, and heck with it, I'm an eternal optimist.

"The idea of pressing A to do everything is something we're trying to avoid."

Well, that's nice to hear, at least.

I certainly won't be buying on release day. Dragon Age 2 saw to that. But I'll definitely be on the lookout for reviews and hoping for the best.

I'd also like to agree with Mogbert, they seem to have mis-identified what made DA2 a shitshow. It wasn't that they were following a single character's journey (Hawke). That was actually a fine idea. It was just that the quality of... everything... was so low. The writing was garbage (particularly the end), the story had some potential, but it was mostly unrealized, the combat was meh, the guys spawning in the middle of a fight was beyond stupid, and yeah, the recycled dungeons were blatantly offensive.

I've been replaying DA:O again and have been awed at the depth and breadth of the game (again). I intend to play 2 this time, after having given it a pass when it was new. But I'm definitely hoping for a game that brings back more of what made 1 great.

At the same time, however, taking the focus *off* the characters seems a step back to me. I take player combos out just to hear them fight with each other. The Fort Drakon scene is one of my favorites; Oghren can make anything sound dirty and frequently does.

Also, needs a dog. "People love dogs. You can never go wrong adding a dog to the story." -- Harry Dresden.

You control templar/mage Shepington, you thought you had averted the coming of the reapers/blight when shit hits the fan and you try to make everybody else be nice to each other (using violence) or take a side and kill the other (but your blight readyness score will be lower). Then morrigan's mom / the catalyst will explain you whats really happening near the end.

It's nice to see that they are baking in some history change catastrophe so as not to step on previous game play throughs, they do need to reset the series after that awful second one and this gives them the liberty to unmake it.

The focus on the when and where rather than the who is also nice. While it may sound like the characters are less important, it really just frees the characters from being tools of fate and lets them be who they are in the world.

"Sorry, but this character is more afraid of fire than he is of the end of the world. So... everyone dies, the end."

If It's enough to encourage me to give the series another shot. Unless their pre-release stuff makes it look like an action movie.

The plot is what killed DA2 for me. Maybe it was because I picked up DA:O a month or two before DA2 came out, but the series went from "You need to prepare to kill a bloody dragon" to "You need to become mayor of a city." Not exactly very inspiring.

I actually bought 2 legit copies of DA:O - one for Windows and one for my Mac (though I've subsequently given up doing games on my Mac; bought a separate Windows box just for games and it does them better than BootCamp ever did for me).

Then I bought DA2 pretty quickly after it came out. I really regretted that. I don't recall whether I ever even finished it, though I think probably not. Everything kept being so much the same that I can't recall where I got to. I considered it to have the most fatal flaw possible in a game - it was boring.

I notice several folk commented about Witcher. That was a bit too much twitch combat oriented for me. My 61year-old reflexes aren't into twitching. And it sounded like Witcher 2 was going further in that direction, so I never bought it. Plus, I just found the "scoring" of how many women you bedded to be in unacceptably poor taste. Sex being part of the game is fine. I reasonably liked the way it was handled in DA:O. Heck, I had no big qualms about helping my 8-year-old (or maybe 9 - I lose track) nephew play with DA:O when he visited me a while ago. He wasn't likely to court the ladies (or guy) in ways that would bring it up. But I found the treatment in Witcher just demeaning.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

You're talking about a mage character from Orlais, where there is a focus on haut couture fashion, so the sexualized, ridiculous outfit seems to fit there, and mages only wear cloth anyways, so it's not exactly some defense problem (any more than other mages, that is).

Your larger point about representation in games is fair, and I won't argue with it at all, as it is a real problem, but there is only one female so far (and only a handful of people shown period) that we can even see, and they are wearing an appropriate style of dress given the class/nationality of the character, so the jury is still out, as sex isn't itself a problem (nor sexy women), only when it is a pervasive use of females as some juvenile ideal.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

Around the time your average female stops walking around with her tits out would be my guess.

I want more than one decent rpg per year. After all game play never is the strong point of these games. The story is. And like books I would hope to have a choice.

The story was also the biggest da problem. Dark spawn are just so terribly predictable and boring. I did love the little story parts and actually was interested in some of the people but the overall story just didn't do it for me. Especially since there were a lot of logic flaws in the setup. Take some time creating the back story please.

Oh and the Witcher sounds totally boring as well. I want fallout back or baldurs gate 2, the dark elve city was epic

I finished playing another RPG just recently, and one of the things I found terribly frustrating was that I would choose dialogue option "be a little grumpy", and my character would say something likely to turn the whole town against him. Matching the on-screen choice to the in-game outcome is critical, and too many games get it wrong.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

You complain about oversexualizing yet dont recognize a character as a woman (yes, there are *2* women in one screenshot) because she wears full armor? Uh...right, maybe the problem lies with you more than the game?

Apparently DAI does have women without exposed boobs and then your complaint seems to be that you dont recognize her as a woman.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

Based off the images on Ars I can find no exceptionally sexualized female characters in the game. The second image in this article includes two characters typically in light armor, a female mage showing some cleavage, and a stocky short hairy rogue showing the exact same amount of cleavage!

I feel focusing on the female character's cleavage (errr...) in the above screenshots and claiming the depiction as unacceptable reveals much more about the commenter's personal feelings rather than the game's depiction of male and female characters. Specifically, a distaste of displayed (female) sensuality in any form rather than (as it is so often masked as) over-sexualization and objectification of females.

In the real world, there were and are plenty of cultures where women (contrary to men) showing such cleavage would be considered offensive, but I *strongly* disagree we should force videogames in general into such an unacceptably restrictive cultural paradigm.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

In total fairness to the screenshots, you will find that the male character in the background also has his shirt hanging loose, chest exposed.While I agree in general that the "Oh Look, I Haz Boobies!!" style of character design really has to die, there is at least something vaguely resembling balance here. Ish. Sort of. Actually yeah, that costume is bloody awful.

- Hitler or Mother Teresa moral choices - the most horrible design development of modern RPGs by far.

- combat with about as much tactical depth as your average FPS (ok we're not going to get back to BG2 levels, but how about the first DA as a compromise?)

- enemies repeatedly just appearing out of thin air while fighting because good level design is hard and it's oh so much easier to just let 5 waves of enemies appear one after the other. (Now this can be a good thing if used rarely and sensibly - say the broodmother fight in DA where helping darkspawn arrives, but not in the blatantly lazy way of DA2)

- environments - we don't have to say a word about that one, do we?

Although I'm thinking Project Infinity and co have a better chance of getting back the feeling of the golden age of RPGs.

PS: It'd be interesting to see how criticism to DA2 maps to how long you've been playing Bioware/RPG games in general. Does DA2 have appeal to new players and only us veterans who still remember Ultima, NVN, BG, Fallout, Planescape,.. are disappointed?

Mogbert is spot on, DA2 was just too much of a phoned in steaming pile of sludge to give this the benefit of the doubt. The fact that every single one of these screenshots shows the same god awful third person that DA screwed the pooch in order to embrace makes that point stand double

This is true, but it was not without its good points. The writing was still good and the story itself was not bad (in fact it was quite good). Some of the characters were quite brilliant and there were interesting things going on.

The major failures were (IMO) gameplay related (the encounter system is incredibly bad for example). The fact that you only visit the same handful of areas over and over again as well adds immensely to the repetition and boredom.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

I don't mind it so much, especially when we have the same problem for male characters where many are body-builders as opposed to your typical medieval warrior who would have had at least a bit of a paunch going on. We have the same problem with games like Skyrim where your two choices are ideal woman or ideal man, with very little flexibility except with regards to what face is taped onto the top.

Even so, I do agree in spirit that it'd be nice to at least see more of a range, with proper female warriors who just wear regular armour because it, you know, offers better protection than leaving most of their top half exposed. Keep some of the over-sexualised ones if necessary, but it's always more about variety. Although I mentioned Skyrim above it does have the redeeming feature that female guards are almost unrecognisable at a distance, which makes a bit more sense, but then you have the companion's female warrior (Aela?) who hardly wears anything in one of the coldest climates in the Elder Scrolls series; in a way it kind of works though because it immediately made me suspicious of her as it didn't seem right, but maybe what she really is means she doesn't feel cold as much?

I dunno, would just be nice to see more of a range of proper warrior women rather than too many silly ones. Another great example is Brienne in Game of Thrones; she's definitely a woman, but in battle gear it's not as clear and she's such a bad ass.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic, just saw your post as editor's pick. It sounds great that Dragon Age is looking to make more consequences matter, I just hope they strike a good balance and don't try to do the whole sequel thing that made Mass Effect flounder at the end, i.e - if they keep the decision making ultimately restricted to the one game then they can polish it and not worry about trying to reflect those decisions in a later game. The difficulty is getting enough depths without introducing a heap of bugs.

I dunno about the reference in the article to the Paragon/Renegade distinction in Mass Effect being too simplistic; Renegade choices aren't exactly simple in the Mass Effect series, and really I'd call many of them being pragmatic, and some do actually ultimately benefit you in the end.

I think that the biggest flaw of DA 2 was that it somehow got a good grade from games reviewers despite being a game that just about everyone who's played it absolutely hates. Pro tip: the worst review any media sequel can get is when a fan of the series says "It wasn't THAT bad." If they say that, then yes, it was. (Cf the Star Wars prequels, the Matrix sequels)

In total fairness to the screenshots, you will find that the male character in the background also has his shirt hanging loose, chest exposed.

The "chick with the eye shield" in the article's second screenshot appears to be Cassandra Pentaghast, the Seeker of Truth that was questioning Varric during the DA2 cutscenes. She is emphatically female, and is wearing appropriate full coverage heavy armor for a character intended to be fighting on the front lines.

The "male character in the background" that "also has his shirt hanging loose, chest exposed" is Varric himself. He's even carrying Bianca, his crossbow. He is dressed in the same fashion that he was during DA2. Varric has light armor because he's a ranged support class and is meant to be wielded in the backfield.

The mage is wearing cloth armor with some exposed cleavage and tights, which is a look that was established in the first two games already, and is also appropriate to the "glass cannon" game design for magic users: if you have magic, you don't get heavy armor. If you have heavy armor, you don't get magic. See also "ranged support."

In general (without going and looking up every instance) Dragon Age tends to be very good about making their heavy armor sets, on male or female characters, being full coverage and solid. Light armor has quite a bit of creative license applied, and the cloth non-armor that mage characters wear can be anything from a very modest high necked, long skirted dress to some miniskirt with garters straight out of Thedas Gone Wild.

Browsing through the images I look at the second one to exclaim myself "Ah! There are female characters too!" only to realize that I recognized the character as female only because, well, a large percentage of her boobs surface is exposed through her armour.

I like female breast as much as any other male but I have to wonder when video games will finally resist the irrational angst that people will stop buying their games should they stop sexualizing female characters.

Note that this is not a comment against the game itself, just a general remark about the sexist representation of female characters in video games, which, being a game developer myself always saddens me to no end.

This is a major problem Bioware has, though it's still not as atrocious as the screenshots of Ashely I saw from ME3. "Look I'm a tough female space marine... with a skin tight outfit and perfect just styled hair and look like I've just been photoshoped to hell and back after a glamor shoot." It was one of the most blatantly exploitative things, if she'd showed anymore skin she'd be straight out of a high class porno (I imagine).

That being said, the "Stand In" for the player character is actually a woman this time (I assume that she's the chick with the Eye shield that's been in all the screenshots, and is there at least partially because there's a ton of women that love Dragon Age). And she doesn't really look exploitative at all.

I've not enjoyed a Bioware game since Dragon Age Origins, and not actually bought a Bioware game since ME2 and the "You are mentally retarded so here's giant flashing signs pointing you in the only possible direction you can go" level design and the out of nowhere "WTF why is there a last boss at all, let alone one that is a giant humanoid terminator?" ending.

That being said I'll at least look at the reviews for Inquisition. Bioware has yet to say much that's truly inept yet, and heck with it, I'm an eternal optimist.

Some game designers recognize this and will actually give their female characters practically designed body armor:

Now going into a gunfight without a helmet is kind of a ridiculous idea, but it affects male and females characters equally here.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.